Save accept, edit, or reject decisions. Input requires expectedVersion and decisions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | No | Fields required by this journey action. | |
| workspaceId | Yes | Activation workspace identifier returned by the start or status tool. | |
| outputFormat | No | markdown | |
| idempotencyKey | No | Optional retry key. Reuse it when retrying the same mutation. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Save ... decisions', implying mutation but offering no details on side effects, authorization needs, or consequences. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one sentence), but conciseness is undermined by being incomplete and misleading. It front-loads a vague purpose but lacks necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, 1 required, nested objects, and no output schema or annotations, the description fails to explain the critical 'input' parameter and how to construct decisions. It is entirely insufficient for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'expectedVersion and decisions' as required inputs, but these are not present in the input schema, which only has workspaceId, outputFormat, idempotencyKey, and an opaque input object. This mismatch misleads the agent. Schema coverage is 75%, but the description adds no useful meaning and contradicts the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Save accept, edit, or reject decisions', giving a verb and resource. However, it is vague and does not explicitly mention 'placement recommendations' as the resource, nor does it distinguish from siblings like save_sulvo_placement_plan or lock_sulvo_placement_revision.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., save_sulvo_placement_plan) or any prerequisites. The description does not mention use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
